IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.499 OF 2026 Laik Ahmed Shaikh .... Applicant Vs. Munir Ahmed Noor Mohd. Qureshi .... Respondents Senior Advocate, Mr. Surel Shah a/w Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar for Applicant. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 17th September 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant. 2. The Applicant challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court, whereby a decree of eviction came to be granted against the Applicant on the grounds of arrears of rent, subletting, non-user, acquisition of alternate premises, and the bona fide requirement of the Landlord. The decree of eviction passed by the trial Court has been concurrently upheld by the Appellate Court on all the aforesaid grounds. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present Application are that the Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit property known as Noor Mohammed Meharali Building, situated at 39-A, Kurla Quresh Nagar, Kurla 1/7 903 CRA 499.26.doc Dusane (East), Mumbai – 400 070, wherein Room no. 23 on the 2nd floor is tenanted to the Defendant at the rate of Rs.70/- per month for residential purpose. 4. The Plaintiff-landlord issued a notice to the Defendant-tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent, as the Defendant had failed and neglected to pay the rent regularly. An amount of Rs. 3,920/- was due and payable towards arrears of rent from 1st January 2013. 5. Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a notice dated 23rd December 2012 to the Defendant-tenant in respect of the non-payment of rent. The said notice was duly served upon the Defendant by pasting the same on the door of the premises, after the postal packet containing the notice was returned with the endorsement “left.” Despite service of the said notice, the Defendant failed and neglected to comply with the same and did not make payment of the arrears demanded therein. 6. The Plaintiff was constrained to institute the present Suit in August 2017 as the Defendant had failed to pay rent from 1st January 2013 till August 2017, despite the Plaintiff's repeated demands. 7. The Suit summons were duly served upon the Defendants. However, despite service of the Suit summons, the Defendant failed to avail the statutory opportunity contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and did not make payment or deposit of the arrears of rent 2/7 903 CRA 499.26.doc Dusane within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of service of the Suit summons. 8. Even thereafter, the Defendant failed to make any payment towards the arrears of rent due and payable to the Plaintiff. Thus, despite service of the statutory notice as well as the Suit summons, the Defendant has continued to remain in default and has failed to clear the arrears of rent payable to the Plaintiff. 9. After considering the aforesaid material, both the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently held that the Plaintiff failed to pay the arrears of rent despite having been duly served with a valid notice and continued to defer payment even after service of summons and beyond the statutory period of 90 days. The Courts have further held that the Plaintiff was neither ready nor willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases and, therefore, was not entitled to claim protection under Section 15 of the Act. 10. In this regard, learned counsel for the Applicant has not disputed that the arrears of rent were not deposited in Court within 90 days of service of summons. However, the submission of learned counsel for the Applicant is that the notice was issued in the year 2017 and the suit was also instituted in 3/7 903 CRA 499.26.doc Dusane the year 2017, as such, according to the Applicant, the notice had become stale and no suit could have been instituted on the basis of such notice. 11. However, it was not disputed before the Courts that the rent had neither been paid nor deposited. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are that the rent was not even paid after service of summons. It is also not disputed that, during the period from 2013 to 2017, there is no proof of payment of rent by the Applicant to the Plaintiff. 12. Considering this aspect of the matter, and the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant that the notice was stale cannot be accepted. There was no payment of rent after service of the notice and until the filing of the suit. The Defendant also failed to pay the arrears of rent pursuant to the notice and, thereafter, failed to tender the amount in Court within 90 days of service of summons in the suit. 13. It is observed by the Courts that the Defendant has failed to deposit the arrears of rent in the Court after his appearance in the suit and that he failed to deposit the same during the pendency of the suit. Considering the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no case is made out for interference with the finding of eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 4/7 903 CRA 499.26.doc Dusane 14. I have already observed that the Applicant has failed to make out a case on the ground of rent. The Plaintiff has also sought eviction of the Defendant on the grounds of subletting under Section 16(1)(e) and non-user under Section 16(1)(n) of the Rent Control Act. 15. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that both these grounds are inconsistent with each other. I do not find any inconsistency between the two grounds. Subletting and non-user may overlap in nature. Once the premises are sublet, non-use of the premises for the purpose for which they were originally let would be a natural consequence of such subletting. 16. Admittedly, the findings of both the Courts below are that the Applicant-Defendant had purchased a house in Navi Mumbai in the year 2008 and shifted there with his family, and that the possession of the suit premises had been with a third person since the year 2013. It was, therefore, for the Defendant to establish the nature of the transaction between the Applicant and the said third person. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the Courts below correctly inferred that the suit premises had been sublet and that there was non-user thereof. 17. Similarly, findings have been recorded in respect of the bona fide requirement under Section 16(1)(g). The suit premises consist of a small 5/7 903 CRA 499.26.doc Dusane room admeasuring 10 x 12 feet, and the Applicant’s family comprises five members who are in need of the said premises. The Defendants have failed to establish their own requirements and have merely alleged that the Plaintiff owns other premises, without producing any evidence in support of such allegation. 18. The Courts below have also held that the comparative hardship would be suffered by the Plaintiff in the event that a decree for possession is not passed. 19. In view of this matter, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. 20. Learned Counsel, on instructions from the power of attorney holder of the Applicant, who is present in Court, makes a statement that, in the event four months' time is granted to vacate the suit premises, he would file the necessary undertaking on the usual terms to vacate the premises. It is submitted that the Petitioner would not create any third-party interest in the suit property, and they would also pay all the outstanding rent. 21. On such undertaking being filed in Court within two weeks and payment of the outstanding rent within four weeks from today, the execution of the decree is stayed for a period of four months from today. All outstanding rental amounts/compensation amounts are to be paid within one 6/7 903 CRA 499.26.doc Dusane month and thereafter on a month-to-month basis until the Petitioner vacate and hand over possession of the suit premises. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 7/7 903 CRA 499.26.doc Dusane BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2026.09.24 13:18:21 +0530